Vaxxers read this. Link provided

[Justin Passing]

"Specific monkey", what are you on about? I showed you research where the chimpanzee adenovirus was used previously and is used now in the AZ vaccine. They all have the same prefix ChAd which stands for chimpanzee adenovirus. I'll grant you it is probably coming from different chimpanzees, I'd hate to think they've been using the same one over the years.

I am on about it being a different chimpanzee virus, which you seem to have conceded now. Surely you can see the logic - not hard. Try the explanation the inventor woman gave - long youtube. It explains basics. There are other novel features too, obvously.

 

[IT Minion]

I am on about it being a different chimpanzee virus, which you seem to have conceded now. Surely you can see the logic - not hard. Try the explanation the inventor woman gave - long youtube. It explains basics. There are other novel features too, obvously.

That's not entirely true, it lessens the effacity of a vaccine response but doesn't prevent it entirely. You can also avoid some of the immunity without modifying the vector.

 

[Justin Passing]

There might be, but it looks like it's another one that won't pan out, after all it didn't work in the only large scale randomised trial to publish results that hasn't been retracted.

It might not pan out. Heck of a lot of bad trials then. Rejecting them all because of an aspect of protocol, gets you down to one, maybe. It seems odd to do that.
Good that trials are continuing. So someone else is wondering too...

 

[Justin Passing]

That's not entirely true, it lessens the effacity of a vaccine response but doesn't prevent it entirely. You can also avoid some of the immunity without modifying the vector.

Well they DO change it because they don't want ANY immune response - listen to the woman's youtube vid..
You're arguing over reasons , which don't matter. Ask yourself why.



Gnight.

 

[IT Minion]

It might not pan out. Heck of a lot of bad trials then.

That is normal.

Rejecting them all because of an aspect of protocol, gets you down to one, maybe. It seems odd to do that.
Good that trials are continuing. So someone else is wondering too...

Randomised double-blind trials are the gold standard for a reason, because small unblinded' ones get it wrong far too easily. That's not rejecting them, that's understanding their value. Until there has been enough research it is stupid to use ivermectin when there are real therapeutic treatments available. Really it needs a Cochrane method meta review, of which there is one and guess what, it says Ivermectin doesn't seem to work.

Why do you refuse to make any comments about Dexamethasone. It's cheap, it saves lives and it was demonstrated in multiple small studies, then validated in several large randomised studies.

 

[JohnD]

It might not pan out.

There are many millions of pharmaceuticals on the shelves, from aspirins up, that are being tried out just in case one in a million helps.

Why have your formed this passionate attachment to Trump's worming pill (that doesn't work)?

 

[Justin Passing]

That is normal.

Randomised double-blind trials are the gold standard for a reason. Until there has been enough research it is stupid to use it when there are real therapeutic treatments available.

You know, like the Dexamethasone you refuse to make any comments about. It's cheap, it saves lives and it was demonstrated in multiple small studies, then validated in several large randomised studies.

Not normal to have so many.
Dex is a steroid, totally different. It's OK,
Do you have any evidence it's an either-or-situation. No.
They already use multiple drugs here at least.
In some countries there's a shortage of everything.

So, again, I don't think you have a point, mate.

 

[Captain Nemesis]

Just so that I dont get falsely accused of fabricating quotes, I'll show the verbatim first, and then one modified in a very common and acceptable way, which has been done by established and respected news reporting organisations all over the world for ever, when they want to make a quote more understandable in a standalone scenario, by adding words in [ ... ] No other words not so parenthesised are fabricated. Adding explanatory expansions clearly identified by [ ... ] is not regarded by any serious person as "fabrication".

1) No I haven't drilled down into the data as it's a load of irrelevant bullsh1t

By 8th September the vaccines had killed 1645 people in Britain and there had been 1,119,683 reported adverse reactions.

[But] I haven't [properly looked at] the data [which I am summarising here as a figure of 1645 people killed by the vaccine] as it's a load of irrelevant bullsh1t

 

[IT Minion]

Not normal to have so many.
Dex is a steroid, totally different. It's OK,
Do you have any evidence it's an either-or-situation. No.
They already use multiple drugs here at least.
In some countries there's a shortage of everything.

So, again, I don't think you have a point, mate.

Where is here? Weren't you going to Brazil? Do they have a shortage there?

Ok, that's underselling it a bit. Doesn't it cut mortality by 1/3?

And yes, that is normal. When you include some of the 'trials' for Ivermectin the bar is really low

 

[Justin Passing]

There are many millions of pharmaceuticals on the shelves, from aspirins up, that are being tried out just in case one in a million helps.

Why have your formed this passionate attachment to Trump's worming pill (that doesn't work)?

https://www.diynot.com/diy/threads/vaxxers-read-this-link-provided.577865/page-7#post-5052828

 

[Justin Passing]

Where is here? Weren't you going to Brazil? Do they have a shortage there?

Ok, that's underselling it a bit. Doesn't it cut mortality by 1/3?

And yes, that is normal.

Now you're trolling.

 

[JohnD]

But why have your formed this passionate attachment to Trump's worming pill (that doesn't work)?

 

[IT Minion]

Now you're trolling.

Trying to get a grip of your sense of scale. Apparently Ivermectin is more interesting so I'm trying to understand how effective you think they are.

 

[IT Minion]

As for the Roman et al review - it's clearly biased as hell. You will eg find where it says that no benefit was found for some aspect in X number of cases - therefore are we to assume there was a benefit in the rest and it would rather not say?

That's all explained in the methodology. That's not bias, that's science.

I believe that's because some of the studies didn't record all the outcomes, so they weren't able to be included for all measures. But I'd have to check to be sure.

I'm not sure why this popped up on my alerts just now, but it's worth answering.

 

[JohnD]

"Hey, I've got a potentially fatal viral disease that attacks the lungs!"

"No prob, mate, I've got some horse-worming tablets here. They'll see you right."

Barmy crackpot.

https://www.ft.com/content/9715bd16-bcb2-4bfc-bbd9-b7316d787698

"The number of Americans suffering serious adverse health effects after consuming ivermectin to treat Covid-19 has more than doubled since the anti-parasitic drug was falsely touted as a cure for the virus.

The US Food and Drug Administration has received 49 reports of poisoning and other serious reactions linked to human consumption of ivermectin to treat Covid so far this year. The equivalent figure for the whole of 2020 was 23 cases, according to data released to the Financial Times. Of those 49 cases, 14 resulted in deaths..."

"...In February Merck, which manufactures ivermectin, said there is no scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against Covid-19 from pre-clinical studies.